If you buy her framing, sure. But the New Republic's analysis at the time called it "auto-cancellation: quitting, then blaming her peers for driving her out" - noting her resignation letter was "long on invective and just plain long, [but] short on evidence." She was alone in her characterization of a NY Times staff meeting shortly before her departure as a "civil war"; numerous Times staffers who were actually there publicly contradicted her, calling it just a normal editorial conversation.
She'd spent years building a cancel culture narrative, then positioned her dramatic exit as living proof of her own thesis. Pretty straight line from there to her $150M exit. There's a lot of money in catering to the worldview of billionaires who see themselves as victims.
Comments
True. She claims a hostile work environment. That's a sort of constructive ejection when it gets intense. A better word is ostracized.
If you buy her framing, sure. But the New Republic's analysis at the time called it "auto-cancellation: quitting, then blaming her peers for driving her out" - noting her resignation letter was "long on invective and just plain long, [but] short on evidence." She was alone in her characterization of a NY Times staff meeting shortly before her departure as a "civil war"; numerous Times staffers who were actually there publicly contradicted her, calling it just a normal editorial conversation.
She'd spent years building a cancel culture narrative, then positioned her dramatic exit as living proof of her own thesis. Pretty straight line from there to her $150M exit. There's a lot of money in catering to the worldview of billionaires who see themselves as victims.
https://newrepublic.com/article/158535/self-cancellation-bar...